Re: The shroud

Walter Hicks wrote:

>I did a poor job on the reference. I suggest instead
>
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0409_040409_TVJesusshroud.html#main
>
>There seems to be some credibility there from a reputable source. Any
>comments?
>

I didn't find so much objection with the first web site except
that they did not mention anything about the person (Geoffrey de
Charny) who supposedly "found" the Shroud. The National Geographic
does at least mention him and points out that hoaxes were quite
common. It also points out that people agreed on the particular
sample used in the measurements. So whereas it doesn't mean it
cannot be true, it seems best not to put high hopes on it either.

I know this is not what you are saying, but I will add this
anyway. To _depend_ on such relics as evidence to support one's
faith is just is distorted as denying the existence of someone
because nobody thought to write down enough details. The decision
to have faith in Christ is finally a personal one, and you can
never be 100% sure it is the truth --- but that is the real price
of faith.

However, we all know that good people have been put to death by
societies, and those people who did those deeds were often proud
of what they had done. It borders on canard and not likely to
advance civilization in any positive direction to start denying
the existence of people who have suffered terrible and
inappropriate deaths at the hands our own folly as mankind:
independent of whether Jesus was the son of God or not. It would
be more sensible to turn to the words of Jesus himself "My God,
my God, why have you forsaken me", than to seize on such a
fantastic spin. It was my understanding we were supposed to
__learn__ from these humbling and tragic lessons of history.

by Grace alone we proceed,
Wayne
Received on Sun Dec 5 10:33:22 2004